PDA

View Full Version : The annual assault on gun owners begins


Ted_Bell
02-20-2005, 9:10 PM
While one good guy trys to make things better, others are at work trying to make things worse. Here are some of the gun bills fighting for attention:


http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_88&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen
AB 88, as introduced, Koretz. Assault Weapons.
Existing law provides penalties for violations of specified
provisions involving assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles, as
specified.
This bill would provide that with regard to specified prohibited
conduct, there would be a separate and distinct offense for each
assault weapon, .50 BMG rifle, or frame or receiver.


http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_98&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen
AB 98, as introduced, Cohn. Firearms.
(1) Existing law generally makes it a crime to carry a concealed
handgun.
This bill would repeal those provisions and establish the new
crime of unlawfully carrying a handgun, as specified. The bill would
make it a crime to carry a handgun in a vehicle or upon one's
person, subject to exceptions, regardless of whether the handgun was
concealed. The bill would also provide additional exceptions to the
provisions establishing the crime. The bill would provide that
unlawfully carrying a handgun is punishable by imprisonment in a
county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed $1,000,
or by both that imprisonment and fine, as specified. The bill would
also provide that the offense would be punishable as a felony if
certain circumstances exist, as specified. The bill would further
provide that in certain instances the penalty imposed would be by
imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in a county jail
not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed $1,000, or by both
that fine and imprisonment, as specified. The bill would require
courts not imposing the 3-month minimum sentence to specify its
rationale, as specified.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_352&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen
AB 352, as introduced, Koretz. Firearms: microstamping.
Existing law defines unsafe handguns as failing to pass certain
tests, or lacking certain features, as specified.
This bill would, commencing January 1, 2007, expand the definition
of unsafe handgun to include semiautomatic pistols that are not
designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters, that
identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched
into the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol,
and which are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when
the firearm is fired.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_48&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen
SB 48, as introduced, Scott. Ammunition.
Existing law makes it an offense for any person, corporation, or
dealer to sell ammunition or reloaded ammunition to a person, knowing
that person to be under 18 years of age, or to sell ammunition or
reloaded ammunition designed and intended for use in a handgun to a
person, knowing that person to be under 21 years of age. Existing law
also establishes an affirmative defense to the offense if, among
other things, the seller relied upon bona fide evidence of majority
and identity, as defined.
This bill would remove the element of "knowing the person to be
under the age" of 18 or 21 years of age, as applicable, from the
definition of the offense. The bill would require reasonable reliance
upon bona fide evidence of majority and identity, as defined, in
order for the affirmative defense to apply.


http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_532&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen
SB 532, as introduced, Torlakson. BB devices.
Except as otherwise authorized by law, any person who willfully
discharges a firearm in a grossly negligent manner that could result
in injury or death to a person is guilty of a public offense
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year,
or by imprisonment in the state prison.
This bill would expand the scope of that offense to include a BB
device, as defined.

Ted_Bell
02-20-2005, 9:10 PM
While one good guy trys to make things better, others are at work trying to make things worse. Here are some of the gun bills fighting for attention:


http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_88&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen
AB 88, as introduced, Koretz. Assault Weapons.
Existing law provides penalties for violations of specified
provisions involving assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles, as
specified.
This bill would provide that with regard to specified prohibited
conduct, there would be a separate and distinct offense for each
assault weapon, .50 BMG rifle, or frame or receiver.


http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_98&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen
AB 98, as introduced, Cohn. Firearms.
(1) Existing law generally makes it a crime to carry a concealed
handgun.
This bill would repeal those provisions and establish the new
crime of unlawfully carrying a handgun, as specified. The bill would
make it a crime to carry a handgun in a vehicle or upon one's
person, subject to exceptions, regardless of whether the handgun was
concealed. The bill would also provide additional exceptions to the
provisions establishing the crime. The bill would provide that
unlawfully carrying a handgun is punishable by imprisonment in a
county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed $1,000,
or by both that imprisonment and fine, as specified. The bill would
also provide that the offense would be punishable as a felony if
certain circumstances exist, as specified. The bill would further
provide that in certain instances the penalty imposed would be by
imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in a county jail
not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed $1,000, or by both
that fine and imprisonment, as specified. The bill would require
courts not imposing the 3-month minimum sentence to specify its
rationale, as specified.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_352&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen
AB 352, as introduced, Koretz. Firearms: microstamping.
Existing law defines unsafe handguns as failing to pass certain
tests, or lacking certain features, as specified.
This bill would, commencing January 1, 2007, expand the definition
of unsafe handgun to include semiautomatic pistols that are not
designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters, that
identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched
into the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol,
and which are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when
the firearm is fired.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_48&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen
SB 48, as introduced, Scott. Ammunition.
Existing law makes it an offense for any person, corporation, or
dealer to sell ammunition or reloaded ammunition to a person, knowing
that person to be under 18 years of age, or to sell ammunition or
reloaded ammunition designed and intended for use in a handgun to a
person, knowing that person to be under 21 years of age. Existing law
also establishes an affirmative defense to the offense if, among
other things, the seller relied upon bona fide evidence of majority
and identity, as defined.
This bill would remove the element of "knowing the person to be
under the age" of 18 or 21 years of age, as applicable, from the
definition of the offense. The bill would require reasonable reliance
upon bona fide evidence of majority and identity, as defined, in
order for the affirmative defense to apply.


http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_532&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen
SB 532, as introduced, Torlakson. BB devices.
Except as otherwise authorized by law, any person who willfully
discharges a firearm in a grossly negligent manner that could result
in injury or death to a person is guilty of a public offense
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year,
or by imprisonment in the state prison.
This bill would expand the scope of that offense to include a BB
device, as defined.

RRangel
02-20-2005, 9:45 PM
Don't you just love it? Our tax dollars hard at work, to screw us.

I actually believe koretz is purposely trying to confuse, disrupt, and keep gun owners and sellers scrambling. This has nothing to do with safety.
The insanity of this bill really proves my point. The jerk is just being spiteful.

You know I'm not exaggerating when I say these legislators are a waste of air. That goes for everyone of them that are responsible for these bad bills. There are real problems in this state and they're just wasting time.

Ted_Bell
02-20-2005, 9:51 PM
I must admit that #352 is pretty clever but also insidious. It does reveal the extreme depth of thought given to restricting the rights of others by him and his backers.

Ford8N
02-21-2005, 5:29 AM
As much as we disagree with the anti-gun rulers, the voters love what they do. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

leo@csuhayward.edu
02-22-2005, 2:21 PM
this is the new firing pin that AB 352 wants you to have:

http://www.aipainunavik.com/assets/images/selectric_ball.jpg

Rascal
02-22-2005, 4:36 PM
AB352
Didn't they have this same type of thing in Maryland and it didn't work, not the mention that fact the it was also too costly?

imported_leelaw
02-22-2005, 11:56 PM
Holy moly AB 352 is whacky.

How the heck would that work, exactly? And how would it work without making it easier for the case to rupture (thinking that whatever is stamping the case could weaken it)?

Safety my food. I'd love people who admit not knowing anything about firearms to be barred from writing laws about them.

Draven
02-27-2005, 8:25 PM
Well, you can basically count on not being able to reload any round so stamped...

And you can pretty much count on a massive number of gun manufacturers giving up on CA.

They don't care, they have armed guards. They could care if we have to defend ourselves from criminals, they could care if criminals don't get their guns legally... it makes no difference to them.